Bernard Hopkins the best Middleweight ever.

familiar ?

Wasn't RJJ a more dominant MW than Nard?

id have to go with hagler i love hopkins hes definantly one the best all time but but hagler woulda killed him

I wouldn't pick anyone over Hopkins with certainty. He is rough enough to maul his way through Robinson. (If blown-up welterweight and less-skilled Carmen Basilio could do it, and if brawling, straight-forward Gene Fullmer could do it, Hopkins sure as hell could.) He is technically gifted enough to take it to Hagler and Monzon, too. Hagler had trouble with tough guys. People forget, but Vito Antuofermo gave him trouble, as did Roberto Duran. Hagler actually had to come from behind and fight like hell to salvage that one. Hagler lost some decisions early in his career to some Philadelphia tough guys, and Hopkins is the best Philadelphia tough guy since Frazier. I haven't seen enough of Monzon to make an assessment, but from what I have seen of Hopkins I know that he knows how to fight, is versatile, and is never in less-than-perfect condition. Hopkins may or may not be the # 1 guy of all time at middleweight, but he definitely is in the final running and deserves to have his name right up there next to the other top middleweight legends. Fullmer was not a straight-ahead brawler, although he could slug-he was fast and was an excellent boxer with a great jab. And Vito got beat badly by Hagler both times, the draw was bogus. Hopkins-probably a top 10 guy, but nowhere near the best ever. There have been SO MANY great middleweights, from Greb, Robinson, Walker, Hagler, Monzon to Fullmer, Tiger, and Cerdan. And Hopkins' era in which he was dominant is clearly the weakest field of middleweights in history. Great great fighter but not in the league of the VERY best.

I wouldn't pick anyone over Hopkins with certainty. He is rough enough to maul his way through Robinson. (If blown-up welterweight and less-skilled Carmen Basilio could do it, and if brawling, straight-forward Gene Fullmer could do it, Hopkins sure as hell could.) He is technically gifted enough to take it to Hagler and Monzon, too. Hagler had trouble with tough guys. People forget, but Vito Antuofermo gave him trouble, as did Roberto Duran. Hagler actually had to come from behind and fight like hell to salvage that one. Hagler lost some decisions early in his career to some Philadelphia tough guys, and Hopkins is the best Philadelphia tough guy since Frazier. I haven't seen enough of Monzon to make an assessment, but from what I have seen of Hopkins I know that he knows how to fight, is versatile, and is never in less-than-perfect condition. Hopkins may or may not be the # 1 guy of all time at middleweight, but he definitely is in the final running and deserves to have his name right up there next to the other top middleweight legends.

Robinson, Hagler and Jones ranks before Hopkins.

Anyone have any clips of this guy?

hey acquiited, you're the fucking loser!! Greb fought Gene Tunney, one of the greatest boxers of all time and destroyed him, just like he'd destroy Jones, or you!

jake lamotta was tough not good he outworked and wanted it more than SRR and thats why he beat him You think you can beat the greatest fighter to ever live simply by being tough and wanting it more? It's not that easy. Jake LaMotta's skills are so underrated by some, it's borderline ridiculous. Yeah, his skills weren't as apparent as Ray Leonard's or Ray Robinson's, but he wasn't some ordinary tough bum. His skill was subtle, but it was abundant. To deny that he was a great fighter is disrespect.

^^Cheers man

Hopkins deserves to be in the top ten but no way the best and i'd put hagler at least two or three notches above him

1. Harry Greb 2. Ray Robinson 3. Carlos Monzon 4. Marvin Hagler 5. Stanley Ketchel 6. Jake LaMotta ...i know Stanley Ketchel is an unpopular pick, but i put a heavy emphasis on level of opposition. He beat Billy Papke, nearly beat Sam Langford (and some sources though he did), and a legit all-time great lt. heavyweight in Philadelphia Jack O'Briend. However, i wouldn't bicker too much if someone decided to rank Hopkins over bother Ketchel and LaMotta. jake lamotta was tough not good he outworked and wanted it more than SRR and thats why he beat him

carlos monzon

Hopkins is up there among the greatest you can not deny his 19 title defense, but Hagler has my vote over Hopkins...

Hagler would put all type of hands to Hopkins! No way Hopkins would hurt Hagler. Hopkins showed earlier in his career that if you hit him he can get knocked down. Hagler could put heavy pressure on him for all 12 and win a ud. Only way to beat Hagler is pay the judges and run away for the whole fight!

1. Harry Greb 2. Ray Robinson 3. Carlos Monzon 4. Marvin Hagler 5. Stanley Ketchel 6. Jake LaMotta ...i know Stanley Ketchel is an unpopular pick, but i put a heavy emphasis on level of opposition. He beat Billy Papke, nearly beat Sam Langford (and some sources though he did), and a legit all-time great lt. heavyweight in Philadelphia Jack O'Briend. However, i wouldn't bicker too much if someone decided to rank Hopkins over bother Ketchel and LaMotta.

What's you're top 6 if you don't mind me asking...

Jones biggest victories at middleweight were a decision over a green Hopkins and a knockout of Thomas Tate. Not an all-time great resume if you ask me. As for Hopkins, i have him at #7 all-time at 160.

Actually I take that back. Hagler might actually give him trouble, since he is a southpaw...

Hagler would stop Roy late. Roy couldn't use his god given talents all night on Hagler. Once the marvelous one touches Roy a few times he'd start to break down and that's when Marvin would end it. Roy may be able to eek out a UD on him...